# SSM debate and separation of church and state **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 15, 2015, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-debate-and-separation-of-church-and-state/725187 "2015-07-15T00:15:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2015, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-debate-and-separation-of-church-and-state/725187/141 "2015-07-15T13:34:27Z")
> [@Haberdash](#): > > Most European countries don’t have formal church-state separation. They guarantee freedom of religion but not non-establishment. > > Western Europe, outside of Ireland, likes to think itself secular. They don’t generally ban things like birth control or homosexuality on explicit religious grounds. At the same time, symbolic things like state-funded churches exist. The main issue is really the unrecognized survivals of religious belief – for example, the opposition to genetic modification of food crops, which is purely based in “you shouldn’t tamper in God’s domain” but gets a lot of support in supposedly secular societies because people don’t examine where their beliefs come from. Cultural inertia is a big thing. Don’t forget the anti-Muslim laws, like [Switzerland’s minaret ban](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_minaret_referendum,_2009), or [France’s ban on “conspicuous” non-Christian, non-Jewish religious symbols](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_law_on_secularity_and_conspicuous_religious_symbols_in_schools). ---
**Author:** ![Hiker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3be4f8/32.png) [@Hiker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hiker)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2015, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-debate-and-separation-of-church-and-state/725187/142 "2015-07-15T13:35:26Z")
> [@Haberdash](#): > > There are literally thousands of examples of that happening. I can imagine. But does the supreme court support them? ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2015, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-debate-and-separation-of-church-and-state/725187/143 "2015-07-15T13:42:39Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Given the central importance of circumcision to Judaism, that would essentially outlaw Judaism. Absolutely not. Jews would be perfectlly free to be circumcised. They just wouldn’t be allowed to impose circumcision on helpless people under their care, like babies. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2015, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-debate-and-separation-of-church-and-state/725187/144 "2015-07-15T13:47:08Z")
> [@Haberdash](#): > > for example, the opposition to genetic modification of food crops, which is purely based in “you shouldn’t tamper in God’s domain” but gets a lot of support in supposedly secular societies because people don’t examine where their beliefs come from. I never heard an argument against GMO based on religious grounds. The opposition to them comes mostly from environementalists/Greens, who are amongst the less likely to be religious. 😕 ---
**Author:** ![Hiker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3be4f8/32.png) [@Hiker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hiker)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2015, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-debate-and-separation-of-church-and-state/725187/145 "2015-07-15T13:51:58Z")
Which in turn would not allow those babies to grow up as part of their community - at least not according to their beliefs. It would be a strong interference with Judaism to outlaw circumcision - so you need an equally strong reason to do it. It comes down to how much harm the circumcision really does to the baby. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2015, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-debate-and-separation-of-church-and-state/725187/146 "2015-07-15T14:14:18Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > I never heard an argument against GMO based on religious grounds. The opposition to them comes mostly from environementalists/Greens, who are amongst the less likely to be religious. 😕 Agreed. If anything, I’d think that Genesis’ assertion that Gawd conveniently gave man unilateral dominion over everything under the Sun (save for their private parts) would be a pretty iron cast religious argument against any and all green policy. Then again, Louis CK’s argument of Gawd going “what the fuck did you DO ?!” could be framed in a more Jesuit way and, in turn, be a legitimate religious argument for any and all green policies. That’s the beauty of religion and statistics. They can say whatever is convenient for them to say :). ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2015, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-debate-and-separation-of-church-and-state/725187/147 "2015-07-15T14:37:50Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > Well it’s only your side that is rewriting the english language to suit your own agenda. And what side is it, pray tell, that is rewriting the the definition of the word “marriage”? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2015, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-debate-and-separation-of-church-and-state/725187/148 "2015-07-15T14:40:47Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > Really? > Look, there are two groups of people that I respect when they talk about the “sincerity” of their beliefs. Catholic priests and nuns and the Amish. Or any such group that actually takes work and sacrifice to follow though on their beliefs. People who cling to their faith only when it’s convenient, comforting or expedient really, do not have my respect. Do you realize that these people do not need your respect? That their beliefs and exercise of them are protected but the U.S. Constitution? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2015, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-debate-and-separation-of-church-and-state/725187/149 "2015-07-15T15:29:54Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > LOL > > How would you interpret “A wall of separation between the fire department and the police department”. Different purpose, different administration, different personnel. Does that seem “vague” to you? I would not bother to interpret it. It was a metaphor expressing (vaguely) an idea. It is not an actual legal term or standard. It does nothing to actually define what actions are prescribed and proscribed. If it had serious meaning in legal terms, then it would not find people on both sides of legal questions invoking it to support their interpretations. > [@Robert163](#): > > Protecting the bible/religion (I am answering your question) I think that you are simply projecting, here. I have posed no argument or promoted any idea to “protect” religion and I have certainly never posted in a way to “protect” the bible. I would guess that since your agenda is to attack those things, you see any correction to your errors as defenses of the things you are attacking. The reality is that I am only providing facts and logic to permit you to correct your errors of understanding if you are so inclined. You have been the one to continue to post wildly off-topic remarks (as well as haring off on anti-religious tirades that I have ignored). I have merely maintained the position that i outlined in the first response to the OP. ---
**Author:** ![Haberdash](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Haberdash](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Haberdash)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2015, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-debate-and-separation-of-church-and-state/725187/150 "2015-07-15T15:33:52Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > I never heard an argument against GMO based on religious grounds. The opposition to them comes mostly from environementalists/Greens, who are amongst the less likely to be religious. 😕 Green-style environmentalism is religious to its core. This is exactly what I’m talking about – you can have the outward allegiance to secularism but still have your thought very much shaped by religious ideas. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2015, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-debate-and-separation-of-church-and-state/725187/151 "2015-07-15T16:32:26Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > This is 2015. I have sympathy for people who are forced into various situations where they have to act against their conscience. Let’s say you are a social worker and you have to return a child from a foster home where the child is doing well back to the original parents, whom, you are quite sure, from decades of experience, will not be good for the child. But the court says you have too and you do it, going against your conscience and registering your protest. (That is the first example I could think of) > > But, in 2015, to say that god/the bible says homosexuality is wrong, when you’ve never met or talked to god/jesus… I have no patience for such outdated thinking. That’s another good example. Though, not being religiously motivated, no one will give you a pass to disobey orders. I agree about the irrelevance of the Bible - but in the case we’re discussing, it is not about whether homosexuality is wrong for oneself, but whether it is so wrong for everyone that you can try to prevent legal actions - as an agent of the government. People can screw themselves up all they want, but I object to them trying to screw other people up - at least unless they bring God or Jesus physically into the discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Hiker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3be4f8/32.png) [@Hiker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hiker)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2015, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-debate-and-separation-of-church-and-state/725187/152 "2015-07-15T19:16:12Z")
> [@Haberdash](#): > > Green-style environmentalism is religious to its core. This is exactly what I’m talking about – you can have the outward allegiance to secularism but still have your thought very much shaped by religious ideas. I cannot speak for environmentalist around the world, but at least here in Germany that is not accurate. Germans have a habit of being frequently worried (and very vocally so) about new technologies, be that nuclear power, bio technology, fracking or whatever. The focus of such discussions is invariably on whether these technologies pose an uncontrollable hazard to our health or the environment. It’s not “Thou shalt not tamper with creation”. It’s the much simpler “We’re all gonna die!”. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2015, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-debate-and-separation-of-church-and-state/725187/153 "2015-07-16T01:01:20Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > You seem to change the subject a lot. You said that “Hobby Lobby is trying to limit other people’s choices based upon religion.” I easily proved that statement untrue, for the second time. yeah, well, you proved it to your satisfaction, that doesn’t mean you actually proved anything. and the difference between discrimination and withholding service is entirely semantical. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2015, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-debate-and-separation-of-church-and-state/725187/154 "2015-07-16T01:06:24Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > If what they thought in 1789 is irrelevant, then the Constitution is irrelevant. So why did you start the thread? > I assume from your posts that you are either atheist or agnostic, and you seem rather confused over the terms. “Wall of separation” does not mean “religion is icky and **Robert163** should decide everything based on what he thinks will happen a hundred years from now”. I hope that clears things up. > > Regards, > Shodan Wall: a continuous vertical brick or stone structure that encloses or divides an area of land. Separation: the action or state of moving or being moved apart. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2015, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-debate-and-separation-of-church-and-state/725187/155 "2015-07-16T01:12:31Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > I would not bother to interpret it. It was a metaphor expressing (vaguely) an idea. It is not an actual legal term or standard. It does nothing to actually define what actions are prescribed and proscribed. If it had serious meaning in legal terms, then it would not find people on both sides of legal questions invoking it to support their interpretations. doesn’t matter. since the people who want to “interpret” it differently are doing so because they don’t like the results. there is no actual ambiguity to either the term wall or separation. > [@](#): > > I think that you are simply projecting, here. > I have posed no argument or promoted any idea to “protect” religion and I have certainly never posted in a way to “protect” the bible. I would guess that since your agenda is to attack those things, you see any correction to your errors as defenses of the things you are attacking. The reality is that I am only providing facts and logic to permit you to correct your errors of understanding if you are so inclined. You have been the one to continue to post wildly off-topic remarks (as well as haring off on anti-religious tirades that I have ignored). > I have merely maintained the position that i outlined in the first response to the OP. yeah, sure, i have an agenda and a bias. that does not automatically make my position wrong. i am the one who is using clear and precise language, you are the one declaring that clear and precise language is “vague”. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2015, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-debate-and-separation-of-church-and-state/725187/156 "2015-07-16T01:18:01Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Well, I’m an atheist (and thus have a particular interest in the protection of religious minorities), and I think you’re way off-base in your assertions here. For one thing, how do you square your ideas with the existence of the free-exercise clause? easiest example is SSM: you are free to dislike SSM but you are not free to discriminate against SSM > [@magellan01](#): > > And what side is it, pray tell, that is rewriting the the definition of the word “marriage”? yeah, but we admit it, we are not dishonestly trying to pretend we are not doing it ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2015, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-debate-and-separation-of-church-and-state/725187/157 "2015-07-16T01:22:33Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > I would not bother to interpret it. It was a metaphor expressing (vaguely) an idea. It is not an actual legal term or standard. It does nothing to actually define what actions are prescribed and proscribed. If it had serious meaning in legal terms, then it would not find people on both sides of legal questions invoking it to support their interpretations. Well, it is the exact wording used by the Supreme Court. That would make it a legal term with a legal standard. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2015, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-debate-and-separation-of-church-and-state/725187/158 "2015-07-16T01:36:49Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > doesn’t matter. since the people who want to “interpret” it differently are doing so because they don’t like the results. there is no actual ambiguity to either the term wall or separation. Just as you want to interpret it differently than they because you don’t like the results. _meh_ That is simply you placing your biases ahead of theirs. No big deal, but there it is. > [@Robert163](#): > > yeah, sure, i have an agenda and a bias. that does not automatically make my position wrong. i am the one who is using clear and precise language, you are the one declaring that clear and precise language is “vague”. Dance away! First you attempt to discredit my arguments by falsely accusing me of holding an agenda and a bias. Then, when your bias is exposed, you want to declare that bias does not affect the outcome of the argument. So which way are you dancing next? = = = Your inability to see anything outside your own beliefs is amusing, but only in short doses. If the phrase is utterly clear, what does it mean in regard to providing special education classes to children at religious schools? bus rides for students to religious schools, (when other private schools are already served by the school system)? And what is your “logic” for each decision? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2015, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-debate-and-separation-of-church-and-state/725187/159 "2015-07-16T01:39:52Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > Well, it is the exact wording used by the Supreme Court. That would make it a legal term with a legal standard. No. It was used by both sides in a decision, making it less than clear what it means. In addition, it was still used as a metaphor, not an actual legal term. It is a vaguely worded goal with multiple applications based on differing interpretations. The phrase was included in the judicial remarks, but it still has no force of law. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2015, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-debate-and-separation-of-church-and-state/725187/160 "2015-07-16T01:41:02Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Just as you want to interpret it differently than they because you don’t like the results. > _meh_ > That is simply you placing your biases ahead of theirs. No big deal, but there it is. > > Dance away! First you attempt to discredit my arguments by falsely accusing me of holding an agenda and a bias. Then, when your bias is exposed, you want to declare that bias does not affect the outcome of the argument. So which way are you dancing next? > > = = = > > Your inability to see anything outside your own beliefs is amusing, but only in short doses. > > If the phrase is utterly clear, what does it mean in regard to > > providing special education classes to children at religious schools? > bus rides for students to religious schools, (when other private schools are already served by the school system)? > And what is your “logic” for each decision? you do know, your claim that “wall of separation” is vague and that term actually - being - vague are not the same thing, right? > [@](#): > > No. It was used by both sides in a decision, making it less than clear what it means. In addition, it was still used as a metaphor, not an actual legal term. It is a vaguely worded goal with multiple applications based on differing interpretations. The phrase was included in the judicial remarks, but it still has no force of law. A supreme court decision has no force of law? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-debate-and-separation-of-church-and-state/725187.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-debate-and-separation-of-church-and-state/725187.md?page=9)